Personal Restraint Petition of Jose Luis Sanchez, Jr., 197 Wash. App. 686

Sanchez was convicted in 2008 of two counts of aggravated first-degree murder and related charges for a 2005 home-invasion shooting; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
At a February 28, 2005 group arraignment Sanchez appeared without his appointed counsel; court advised rights and set omnibus/trial dates; Sanchez signed the court order and did not change pleas.
The arraignment occurred amid heavy media coverage; Sanchez alleges he was filmed/photographed in shackles and that counsel could have objected.
Key identification evidence: victim Michelle Kublic identified Sanchez at trial as the shooter; codefendant Mario Mendez pleaded guilty and testified that Sanchez shot the victims; police recovered a .45 handgun from Sanchez’s residence matching the murder weapon.
Sanchez filed a personal restraint petition asserting (1) denial of counsel at a critical stage (arraignment) requiring automatic reversal, and (2) ineffective assistance because counsel failed to appear and object to media filming. The Court dismisses the PRP.

Issue	Sanchez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether absence of counsel at arraignment was structural error requiring automatic reversal	Arraignment was a "critical stage" (citing Hamilton/White) so lack of counsel is presumptively prejudicial; no need to show actual prejudice	The arraignment was routine (name/rights/charges); no rights or defenses were lost and the absence did not contaminate the entire proceeding	Not structural. Court required Sanchez to show actual and substantial prejudice under Cook and he failed to do so
Whether counsel's failure to appear/object to media filming was ineffective assistance	Counsel's absence and failure to object to media exposure prejudiced identification evidence and trial outcome	Sanchez cannot show deficient performance caused a reasonable likelihood of a different result given other strong evidence and the jury's verdict	Ineffective-assistance claim fails under Strickland because Sanchez cannot show resulting prejudice

Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (arraignment can be a critical stage where denial of counsel is presumptively prejudicial)
White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59 (preliminary hearing without counsel that produced a plea used at trial is presumed prejudicial)
Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (complete denial of counsel at a critical stage can be structural error)
Fulminante v. Argentina, 499 U.S. 279 (distinguishing structural errors from trial errors subject to harmless-error analysis)
Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 (Sixth Amendment violations are subject to harmless-error analysis unless they "contaminate the entire proceeding")
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (counsel is required during the critical period from arraignment to trial)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance + prejudice)